‘Go on.’
‘The only meaning I can take from that is that Jen thought Charles had been as excited by her dominatrix act as she was.’
Jones smiled cynically. ‘That’s a big leap of imagination.’
‘I’m not saying it’s rational, Superintendent. I’m saying it’s what an intensely egotistical woman might think.’
‘Yet according to Dr Campbell, Jen told Charles’s psychiatrist in Birmingham that she hoped his amnesia covered the end of the relationship. She sent him a series of love letters that didn’t even mention the rape, let alone how close he came to castration.’
‘But he didn’t read them and he didn’t reply.’
‘So?’
Jackson shrugged again. ‘If you were Jen what would you take from that?’
‘That the letters never reached Charles.’
Jackson nodded. ‘And what do you take from the fact that the contents were anodyne and only mentioned how good the relationship was?’
‘That she hoped he’d forgotten?’
‘Or she was afraid a nurse would have to read them to him because she didn’t know what his injuries were.’ She paused. ‘The more interesting question is why Charles was willing to hand them unopened to his psychiatrist when he was so resistant to revealing anything about the relationship.’
‘Go on.’
‘He knew Jen would do what his parents have done all his life . . . keep their secrets under wraps. He prefers it like that. The only way he knows how to deal with pain is to absorb it.’ She sighed. ‘He’s said all along you were out to crucify him . . . and that’s what you’ll be doing if you force him into court to support a prosecution. He’s carrying too much baggage to cope with having all this dragged into a public arena.’
Jones shook his head. ‘You underestimate him, Doctor. If I’ve learned anything about the lieutenant in the last few days, it’s that he’s a great deal more determined to face his fears than you and I are.’
METROPOLITAN
POLICE
INTERNAL MEMO To: ACC Clifford Golding From: Det Supt Brian Jones Date: 20 August 2007 Subject: Interview procedure
Sir,
Re Concerns expressed by Jennifer Morley’s legal representative
Please find attached a copy of Morley’s custody record, showing that she was charged well within the 36-hour time-limit allowed under PACE.
In the view of the interviewing officers and myself, the ‘breakdowns’ cited by Morley’s legal representative were determined attempts to run down the detention clock. Morley employed fainting spells, panic attacks and constant requests for healthcare assistance to disrupt her interviews. Despite these delays, she was charged at 11.45 on Friday, 17 August 2007, with the murders of Harry Peel and Kevin Atkins, making a detention time of 32 hours and 15 minutes. She appeared before magistrates three hours later and was remanded to HMP Holloway.
The custody officer is entirely satisfied that we had reasonable grounds for detaining Morley, and that all interviews were conducted in accordance with Codes of Practice. She was allowed several rest periods, including a sleep break, and was given appropriate assistance and monitoring at all times together with regular offers of food and beverages. Most of these were declined. A copy of her custody record was made available to her legal representative.
The following is a brief summary of events
DI Beale and DC Khan pursued a line of questioning, proposed by James Steele (psychologist), which was designed to persuade Morley that she had control of the interview. As Steele predicted, this led her to offer easily disputed alibis about where she was and who she was with over the murder weekends. In the first two cases (Peel & Britton), she claimed to have been in London in the company of Lt Charles Acland; in the third (Atkins), to have been in a hotel in Birmingham, following a visit to Lt Acland in hospital.
Morley’s first fainting spell occurred after DI Beale showed her the register from Lt Acland’s base, and read parts of his statement, detailing her violence against him. Thereafter, the ‘breakdowns’ became more frequent as new evidence was disclosed. On the insistence of her legal representative, Morley was given time to recover after each occasion.
In her next interview, she denied assaulting Lt Acland and made counter-accusations that he’d brought the stun gun and the knobkerrie into the relationship in order to assault her. She portrayed herself as an abused ‘spouse’ with battered-wife syndrome. When asked if this had given her a fear of men, she agreed that it had, although she refused to comment on information retrieved from her computer that suggested a continued willingness to put herself in danger from men in the role of prostitute/escort. This information included the names and/or telephone numbers and addresses of Peel, Britton and Atkins.
Following a two-hour break at the request of her solicitor, she offered drug dependency as a reason for her prostitution. She further claimed that her victim status as an abused spouse had driven her to self-medicate on ‘uppers’ in order to treat her depression and low self-esteem. She blamed Lt Acland for her dependency, laying prolonged stress on his violent and jealous behaviour. As explanation for having Peel/Britton/Atkins’s contact details on her computer, she claimed to work part-time for a sex chat line.
On James Steele’s advice, DI Beale and DC Khan allowed these statements to go unchallenged and ‘rewarded’ Morley with an overnight sleep break. She was woken at 06.30 and given an opportunity to perform basic ablutions and apply make-up. Breakfast was offered, but declined.
Morley’s demeanour remained upbeat until she was shown the forensic evidence obtained from two different sets of clothing in her flat. Blood-spot DNA traces on a dark jacket, linking her to Atkins, and similar DNA traces on a pair of shoes, linking her to Peel. In addition, FSS made matches with fibres taken from a woollen scarf in Morley’s apartment to fibres found on Atkins’s premises.
After another ‘breakdown’ and a lengthy consultation with her legal representative, Morley admitted involvement in the deaths of Peel and Atkins. She offered self-defence and ‘battered-wife syndrome’ as justification, saying both men became aggressive under the influence of alcohol. She claimed to have lashed out in a panic with the first thing she could lay her hands on. In the case of Peel, a table lamp base. In the case of Atkins, an unopened bottle of wine.
Morley was then shown the hemp duffel bag and its contents and was asked to account for the stun gun and the knobkerrie. On the advice of her legal representative, she refused to answer further questions, and I took the decision to charge her with the murders of Peel and Atkins.
The detailed investigation of Morley’s property continues, and FSS are confident of linking her to Martin Britton’s premises and murder.
Three strands of hair found on the inside of the hemp bag have provided a DNA link with Morley, although this will certainly be contested in court. It is feasible, if unlikely, that Lt Acland carried them on his clothes for several months and transferred them unwittingly to the duffel.
The ongoing examinations of Morley’s computer and mobile telephone, also Peel’s and Britton’s phones, continue to produce evidence. Information retrieved and followed up to date shows that Morley had had previous contact with all three men.